Impact of teaching on use of mechanical chest compression devices: a simulation-based trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of mechanical chest compression devices on patients in cardiac arrest has not shown benefits in previous trials. This is surprising, given that these devices can deliver consistently high-quality chest compressions without interruption. It is possible that this discrepancy is due to the no-flow time (NFT) during the application of the device. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate a reduction in no-flow time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with mechanical chest compression devices following 10 min of structured training in novices. METHODS: 270 medical students were recruited for the study. The participants were divided as a convenience sample into two groups. Both groups were instructed in how to use the device according to the manufacturer's specifications. The control group trained in teams of three, according to their own needs, to familiarise themselves with the device. The intervention group received 10 min of structured team training, also in teams of three. The participants then had to go through a CPR scenario in an ad-hoc team of three, in order to evaluate the training effect. RESULTS: The median NFT was 26.0 s (IQR: 20.0-30.0) in the intervention group and 37.0 s (IQR: 29.0-42.0) in the control group (p < 0.001). In a follow-up examination of the intervention group four months after the training, the NFT was 34.5 s (IQR: 24.0-45.8). This represented a significant deterioration (p = 0.015) and was at the same level as the control group immediately after training (p = 0.650). The position of the compression stamp did not differ significantly between the groups. Groups that lifted the manikin to position the backboard achieved an NFT of 35.0 s (IQR: 27.5-42.0), compared to 41.0 s (IQR: 36.5-50.5) for the groups that turned the manikin to the side (p = 0.074). CONCLUSIONS: This simulation-based study demonstrated that structured training can significantly reduce the no-flow time when using mechanical resuscitation devices, even in ad-hoc teams. However, this benefit seems to be short-lived: after four months no effect could be detected.

Airway management during ongoing chest compressions-direct vs. video laryngoscopy. A randomised manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is used for advanced airway management during cardiac arrest, particularly when basic airway techniques cannot ensure adequate ventilation. However, minimizing interruptions of chest compressions is of high priority. Video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation in emergency airway management. We aimed to compare first-pass success rate and time to successful intubation during uninterrupted chest compression using video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy. METHODS: A total of 28 anaesthetists and 28 anaesthesia nurses with varied clinical and anaesthesiological experience were recruited for the study. All participants performed a tracheal intubation on a manikin simulator during ongoing chest compressions by a mechanical resuscitation device. Stratified randomisation (physicians/nurses) was performed, with one group using direct laryngoscopy and the other using video laryngoscopy. RESULTS: First-pass success rate was 100% (95% CI: 87.9% - 100.0%) in the video laryngoscopy group and 67.8% (95% CI: 49.3% - 82.1%) in the direct laryngoscopy group [difference: 32.2% (95% CI: 17.8% - 50.8%), p<0.001]. The median time for intubation was 27.5 seconds (IQR: 21.8-31.0 seconds) in the video laryngoscopy group and 30.0 seconds (IQR: 26.5-36.5 seconds) in the direct laryngoscopy group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: This manikin study on tracheal intubation during ongoing chest compressions demonstrates that video laryngoscopy had a higher first-pass success rate and shorter time to successful intubation compared to direct laryngoscopy. Experience in airway management and professional group were not significant predictors. A clinical randomized controlled trial appears worthwhile.

Team leadership assessment after advanced life support courses comparing real teams vs. simulated teams.

Aim: Effective team leadership is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and is taught during international advanced life support (ALS) courses. This study compared the judgement of team leadership during summative assessments after those courses using different validated assessment tools while comparing two different summative assessment methods. Methods: After ALS courses, twenty videos of simulated team assessments and 20 videos of real team assessments were evaluated and compared. Simulated team assessment used an instructor miming a whole team, whereas real team assessment used course participants as a team that acted on the team leader's commands. Three examiners individually evaluated each video on four different validated team leadership assessment tools and on the original European Resuscitation Council's (ERC) scenario test assessment form which does not assess leadership. The primary outcome was the average performance summary score between all three examiners for each assessment method. Results: The average performance summary score for each of the four assessment tools was significantly higher for real team assessments compared to simulated team assessments (all p-values < 0.01). The summary score of the ERC's scenario test assessment form was comparable between both assessment methods (p = 0.569), meaning that participants of both assessments performed equally. Conclusion: Team leadership performance is rated significantly higher in real team summative assessments after ALS courses compared to simulated team assessments by four leadership assessment tools but not by the standard ERC's scenario test assessment form. These results suggest that summative assessments in ALS courses should integrate real team assessments, and a new assessment tool including an assessment of leadership skills needs to be developed.

Dislocation rates of postoperative airway exchange catheters - a prospective case series of 200 patients.

BACKGROUND: The dislocation rate of oral versus nasal airway exchange catheters (AEC) in the postoperative care unit (PACU) are unknown. Our aim was to establish dislocation rates and to assess the usefulness of waveform capnography to detect dislocation. METHODS: In this non-randomized, prospective observational trial at the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, we included 200 patients admitted to PACU after extubation via AEC, having provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the local ethical committee. AEC position was assessed by nasal fiberoptic endoscopy at beginning of PACU stay and before removal of the AEC. Capnography was continuously recorded via the AEC. Additional measurements included retching and coughing of the patient, and re-intubation, if necessary. RESULTS: Data from 182 patients could be evaluated regarding dislocation. Overall dislocation rate was not different between oral and nasal catheters (7.2% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.16). Retching was more often noted in oral catheters (26% vs. 8%, p < 0.01). Waveform capnography was unreliable in predicting dislocation (negative predictive value 17%). Re-intubation was successful in all five of the nine re-intubations where an AEC was still in situ. In four patients, the AEC was already removed when re-intubation became necessary, and re-intubation failed once, with a front of neck access as a rescue maneuver. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in dislocation rate between nasal and oral position of an airway exchange catheter. However, nasal catheters seemed to be tolerated better. In the future, catheters like the staged extubation catheter may further increase tolerance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in a clinical study registry ( ISRCTN 96726807 ) on 10/06/2010.